Microbob, just stop man, seriously. This is getting embarrassing. You don't have to like Radiohead, but basically everything Halowax is saying about them and your argument is correct.

If nothing else, Halowax has put together some well thought out arguments that clearly demonstrate his knowledge on the subject that I enjoyed reading.

salt - Except for the part about whether I can get or understand the music when it is being argued that I don't.

His points on RH's side are definitely interesting. His claims about me aren't accurate though.

bnrocks - I agree that some of his input is really interesting and I have learned some from him as well. To the extent that I even tried listening to them YET AGAIN (when I previously didn't think I would want to).

The Dave Matthews quote is somewhat interesting too. This, of course, is more relevant if you don't think such accolades from him actually hurt your cause more than help (lame attempt at a humorous DMB slam). Some might view the DM quote on RH's side as a slam-dunk win for MY view actually (har har....it's a joke...lighten-up everyone!!)

Listen, I apologize if you were offended by what I wrote. I was certainly being hyperbolic in my arguments and it was simply for humors sake because you keep trying to argue an inarguable point. When I said you "lacked depth", I meant it solely in the context of music appreciation. Other than that comment, I am not so sure why you think I was personally attacking you?

Also, like I said, I really love almost all of the bands you listed, and I don't in any way think that you liking them makes you any less of a person, and I am not sure how you got that impression? I was breaking down the bands in an attempt to analyze the music from an objective perspective and compare it to the rhythmic/melodic qualities of Radiohead, and If in doing so I came across as overly harsh towards you, I sincerely am sorry.

I do think it is really silly to create a musical identity based on snobbishness, and a "narrow range" of appreciation. I definitely think that it is better in music, as it is in poker, to be able to maintain a "wide range". If you are able to really listen to something with open ears, you might find something you like where you least expected. There is some really good country (Cash, Loretta Lynn), and some really good Britney songs, too.

Ummm, I am rather certain I specifically addressed every single argument you presented concerning their suckiness, and then readdressed your rebuttals, with quotes no less, so it would be easy for anyone to follow who just jumped itt. If I have misinterpreted the reasons why you do not like Radiohead, the burden is solely on you.

I am not going to restate the already stated respnses, but it seemed that your points were:

-Radiohead, unlike other musical acts you don't appreciate (Beatles, nirvana, metallica) are not actually talented musicians.
-They are self indulgent.
-They are pretending to be deep.
-Just because they use odd time signatures, that doesn't make them good.
-You don't like Thom's voice.
-You are a music snob, and you don't like them, so Radiohead=suck.

Every single one of these points was addressed, and some of them multiple times.

ZOMG YES!! YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!

...and likewise, you simply do not emotionally connect with the music, which I have said multiple times... and, yet, you keep maintaining that it isn't a matter of connecting with the music, and that they actually do in fact "suck".

The only reason I kept addressing that point is because you keep trying to objectively argue that they actually lack talent, innovation, and influence, when that is so patently false. It is simply a matter of emotional resonance, and for whatever reason, the music does not resonate with you... but it does with an incontestable majority of music appreciators who would be willing to claim that Radiohead is, in fact, "THE BEST BAND OF OUR TIME", whether you like it or not...

...so, I would say that you not liking them, well, it's kind of like me not liking olives...

Okay Halo, I appreciate the apology. I guess I misinterpreted the drive of your post so I also appreciate the clarification. I still think the tone was pretty insulting in places but the sarcasm stuff sometimes goes the wrong way on the internet so no biggie.

Anyway, the part about me that I am saying is incorrect was some of this stuff:

I don't think I am holding onto the past as much as you probably think nor do I believe my taste is as dated as you probably think. Perhaps somewhat in that I certainly know more Cure than your average 20 year old. But I don't believe this to be the reason for my distaste for RH.

I also think you are reading too much into the "self-indulgent" line which I borrowed from someone else and which, by my own admission, isn't exactly uncommon for a lot of bands as you were observing. I'm trying to find the best way to describe my view on this.



Yes. It's about connecting and my view on what should or shouldn't be "connect-worthy." And this will pretty much always be the case for different forms of media/art for anyone I think (along with the bit about trying to more precisely consider the technical aspects).

The fact that I don't connect with them in and of itself isn't the whole thing here. I also don't really connect with The Beatles or Nirvana all that much but I think they were significant bands and don't think either of them sucks.

I also don't connect with the movie Howard the Duck. To somebody else it might be the most meaningful and deepest and the all-time best film they've ever seen. From my point of view this isn't going to be just a matter of, "well, if it's that meaningful to you then I guess it's just a matter of personal preference." To me, it's just a bad film.

You can tell me over and over again that it's just a matter of personal taste on RH as to why I don't like them and that they just aren't my cup of tea. But that is not my view of them. I make a distinction between bands that just don't move me that much or I don't care that much about vs. bands that I think just aren't good. We've kind of been going around and around on that point obviously.

And this is why people should just ignore you and stop turning this thread into a "get MicroBob to embarrass himself" essay contest. You can hate listening to Radiohead all you want but anyone who has ever achieved any degree of technical skill or understanding in music will tell you that they are very talented and accomplished musicians. Anyone who is familiar with contemporary rock and its various sub-genres (which, by your stated preferences, you clearly aren't) will tell you that they have been tremendously influential. These are objective facts. I think a lot of the other arguments about the subjectivity of art and the validity of your layman's opinion vs. critical acclaim are less than perfect, but when you make arguments like the one I quoted above you cross the line from a matter of taste into a matter of fact. And the fact is you are ignorant about contemporary music and your opinion isn't worth the toilet paper it ought to be printed on.

Ham - That's a reasonable post (although the last line is a bit unnecessarily harsh). I do think I'm more familiar with today's music than you might think though. Certainly not as much as you are. Just more than I suspect you are currently assuming/believing of me.

In many bands that I think are more closely associated with RH I'm hearing other influences that I think are more pronounced. And some of that is stuff that was done before RH. That's all I was getting at on the influence issue. It kind of varies and bounces around of course because RH has had some different sounds. And I admit I don't read enough music mags and articles to know whether a band like Doves have said that RH was huge for them or whether they were bigger fans of Verve or Beta Band or Yo La Tengo or none of the above.

To me it kind of feels like any pseudo blend of shoe-gaze with pop or some of the other things RH has been doing with more electronica or trippier type stuff gets a "clearly RH influenced" tag and I'm not sure that's correct.

Cool analogy, brah.

Aren't you getting tired of this? I feel like the last 500 post itt are "MBob doesn't like Radiohead". We get it. I really don't know what you want here, unless you're on a 1-man crusade to convince the world that Radiohead are the musical equivalent of Howard the ****ing Duck.

But you know what, the ECHL is actually the "Howard the Duck" of hockey. True story...

Howard the Duck, lol. A proper analogy would be something like I don't connect with "2001:ASO", Stanley Kubrick has no eye for cinema. Because I don't like it. And I'm not wrong.

This is easily one of the worst posting crusades of the year.

Iron Maiden, if we're including old bands that are still active. X Japan and Dream Theater, too.

Agalloch and Mastodon come to mind. Perhaps Ulver, Opeth, Stratovarius, Edguy, and Kamelot.

In other words, listen to more metal.

How can you not like No Surprises?

I really like Radiohead, but I don't think I could say they are the best band of our time.

Why is a such a big deal that MicroBob does not like Radiohead? OP's question is who is the "best" band of all time - this is so open to interpretation that any subjective opinion, however crude, is valid.

This thread rules. I don't even like RH but it's funny to see all the fanboys come out of the woodwork.

hehehe, this has little to do with the FACT that Microbob doesn't like Radiohead. It now has way more to do with Microbob's attempt to prove that Radiohead are not talented musicians.


This entire thread turned from obnoxiously pretentious to comically bad and lolworthy thanks to Microbob, so I guess we should thank him for "saving" this thread.

Bumping to point out the Rolling Stone came out with its own list of best albums of the decade with Kid A as #1 and In Rainbows (which I don't agree with) not far behind. This is mainly noteworthy because
a) RS supports an increasingly mainstream corps of artists, and
b) the voting panel included music stars including Lil Wayne, Metallica, and Coldplay (who to be fair we all knew were the biggest RH fanboys on Earth.)

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto..._the_decade/44

A much more apt analogy would be to Benjamin Button, where critical acclaim and technical mastery didn't prevent the movie from being a boring pile of ****.

The Bends is easily one of the greatest albums of all time - and it isnt even their most popular!

I don't like them, in fact I'd probably pay someone in order to get them to turn it off...but it is obvious they they are super talented and heavily influenced a ton of people. Bad comparison but I'm sure tons of people hated or didn't get Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys but you can't deny that he was sick talented and heavily influenced people(namely the Beatles).

Now for the greatest band of our time? Def. not.
If so...it is really sad that the greatest band of our time never gets or got any airplay on the radio.

I'd say my "greatest rock band of my time(mid to late 80s,90s,00s)" would be something along the lines of:

U2
Metallica
Alice in Chains
RHCP
maybe Guns n Roses/Nirvana

sadly nothing from the uh oh decade(2000s) makes the cut.

I thought U2 were a political party seriously bono makes me wanna spew whenever i see him. edge, an overated guitarist, , larry average drummer, and adam a really good if not great bass player. put all that together and you have a great band but unfortunately bono ruins it for me.

Metallica.....sellouts

You're old and aren't a fan of (new) music. Thanks for the opinion though! I don't get the argument for a band's airplay, when in "our time" no one buys CDs or listens to the radio. Again, this thread is not titled "most popular band of our time (although the results and responses would likely be the same)." Your point completely contradicts this era in music. If you haven't done anything for 15+ years, you're not in this discussion.

Being a radiohead troll and not as funny as Microbob 600+ posts into the thread makes a useless post though.

After reading the beginning of this thread and hearing those marginally adequate songs OP posted, I feel the need to share some great work from musicians of the current generation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMcjXo8ZuqE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88QDVnp-Qbw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YJR-doOWf8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpbkM...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uDocdxSwv0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjFZ1Lo_B2w

I'll save everybody the clicks. Joe Satriani, buckethead, wank wank wank. If I wanna see shredding, I'll go watch Paco de Lucia.